Syracuse, NY -- A state law prohibiting phone threats, cyberstalking and other frightening behavior was struck down last month as being unconstitutional.

Aggravated harassment included any "annoying or alarming" behavior made by phone, letter or other written word. Over the years, that has extended to the Internet, text messaging and e-mail.

In Central New York, 233 people were charged with aggravated harassment in 2013, according to the Syracuse.com police blotter. So far this year, 97 have been arrested.

It's what police charge someone who made threatening phone calls or scary e-mails to victims in abusive relationships, according to the director of a Syracuse domestic violence shelter.

"What does he have to do, try to kill me before someone does anything?" victims often wonder.

The aggravated harassment law allowed police to arrest an abuser and get court-ordered protection for the victim before the situation got worse, said Randi Bregman, director of the domestic violence shelter Vera House.

The law also outlawed stalking someone via Facebook, e-mail or other electronic means.

But the state's highest court ruled the law didn't do enough to protect free speech. By effectively banning annoying language, the statute was "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad," the Court of Appeals decided.

"This decision has a tremendous impact on public safety and how we deal with stalkers and domestic violence cases and cyberbullying," said First Chief Onondaga County Assistant District Attorney Rick Trunfio.

But the fallout for prosecutors and victims' advocates has been extraordinary.

Consider:

• Prosecutors immediately told local police to stop charging suspects with aggravated harassment under the "annoying or alarming" statute. That leaves police looking for any other possible charges to cover the same activity.

• The court's ruling blocked an avenue for abuse victims to get an order of protection barring an abuser from communication. (The court system does not keep records on the number of protective orders granted based on an aggravated harassment charge.)

• Some orders of protection have not been granted because the law is no longer valid, though the extent of the fallout remains to be seen, a court executive said.

• Victims now have a harder time proving abuse, because they cannot use phone records and e-mails alone as evidence of a crime. Other crimes often rely on "he said/she said" evidence.

• Victims advocates and prosecutors are working to draft a new law that will satisfy the court, Bregman and Trunfio said.

In most situations, the charge alone doesn't spur a news story. But it has been tied to some disturbing situations, including bomb threats and death threats from jealous ex-lovers, according to The Post-Standard archives

It also includes some odd situations. A woman receiving sexually-explicit phone calls in 1991 asked the harassing caller for his number. When he obliged, she reported him to 911. The man was charged with aggravated harassment.

"We're concerned that this type of conduct genuinely scares people," Trunfio said. "We use it a lot in domestic violence cases, stalking cases. Those are the cases that are troublesome for us."

Bregman said the gray area comes when someone makes insults or denigrating remarks that aren't necessarily threats.

"If someone calls you a name, is that a threat/harassment or free speech?" Bregman asked. Obviously, she said, it depends on the situation.

But whatever happens now, she hopes some law can take the place of the frightening behavior that was central to the aggravated harassment charge.

"We have to draft legislation that does not make it vague," Trunfio concluded.